com1 incorrectly associated with ttyd1, com2 with ttyd0

[John Baldwin]

On Friday 16 December 2005 01:43 am, Joe Rhett wrote:
> > On Monday 05 December 2005 03:07 pm, Joe Rhett wrote:
> > > So what's involved in simply having it say
> > > Found <device>: disabled in BIOS
> > > instead of half a dozen complaints for each disabled device?
>
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 03:26:47PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> > There's no disabled flag.  If you have PNP OS set to yes in your BIOS, it
> > is free to leave any devices not needed for booting unconfigured (like
> > printer ports, serial ports, etc.) and there is no way for the OS to know
> > if the BIOS didn't alloc resources because it is disabled or because the
> > BIOS was just lazy.
>
> If this is impossible to know, why do Windows and Linux both handle it
> properly?

Probably because currently most BIOSen still setup most ISA-type devices even 
though they aren't required to when PnP OS is set to YES and Windows and 
linux are probably just as lazy as we are when it comes to ISA-type devices 
that have no resources (i.e. just fail to attach instead of trying to figure 
out which resources to use and setting it up.)  Really there should be an 
OS-dependent way of saying that you don't want to use a device and you could 
even turn devices off that the BIOS enables.  We don't have and good way for 
handling that currently however.

-- 
John Baldwin <jhb at FreeBSD.org>  <><  http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve"  =  http://www.FreeBSD.org